What happened to the Doc investigation?

[EndlessWire]

I don't mean, why are we waiting to indict Trump for the attempted insurrection. I get that. We want all the testimony, and as many perpe-traitors as we can get. But, why haven't they indicted Trump for stealing classified docs? Isn't that separate from J6?

Why are we waiting to let him solve his legal troubles one case at a time?

Okay so we have an indictment coming up in July-Aug-Sept, something coming up October 2nd (can't remember which one that is), and...? He'll be fighting with Cohen at some point, Ruby sued someone for something (never heard another word about that) and what else?

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT WE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THE ORANGE TURD RAN FOR OFFICE. I don't want to hear that it's too close to 2024 elections to defend our country from Trump and his crazy followers. My patience is wearing thin, thin, thin. Yes, I want to prosecute them all, knowing all the while that they will not be adequately punished. I still want to get them. But, I will be PISSED AS HELL to hear Garland declare that he has to wait until after 2024. That will be too late.

Here it is, May 2023. How long do we have to wrap this up?

I hope that one day that stupid asshole of a woman is embarrassed to death that she embraced Trump and wanted to watch the Congress be hanged. Eff her all to hell and back!

It's not too early to plan our defense of the country. As always, even though it is looking dim for a legal election, we still have to GOTV. Our votes are our bullets.

Trump is EVIL. Repubs are evil. Eff Trump and all his followers.

[Irish_Dem]

1. Trump gets the longest due process in US history.

The DOJ is afraid of him.

[Beastly Boy]

18. That will work fine for a hyperbole. But if you are interested,

the longest due process in US history lasted 14 years.
https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/210948598/#:~:text=The%20investigation%2C%20known%20as%20%E2%80%9CGreylord%2C%E2%80%9D%20became%20the%20longest,eventually%2C%20three%20suicides%20and%20more%20than%20seventy%20indictments.

It was also the most successful. It netted 103 charges, 70 indictments and 23 trials. The due process taking place in various criminal investigations that involve Trump is likely to top this by a huge number and take a lot less time.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. You must have missed this update:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217872109

Hope you find it helpful.

P.S. you won’t hear Garland say the indictments will have to wait until after 2024; the election season moratorium doesn’t start until September 2024, plenty of time for Smith to finish his presentation to the grand jury and seek indictments from them.

Trump’s attempts at delay by filing executive privilege claims have been resolved pretty quickly- Pence testified this week after only a few weeks delay for court hearings, as have others. The documents case has resolved most, if not all the attorney/client vs crime/fraud exceptions, and most of the attorneys involved have already testified.

The biggest issue that appears to remain is that of venue- should Smith charge with espionage, in which case the venue will almost certainly be Florida, where Trump could draw a sympathetic judge, even the judge who tried to sabotage the documents investigation last year. Or, Smith could focus on obstruction, which would place the venue in DC, and dramatically improve the odds in DOJ’s favor.

Read the full emptywheel post linked in the link above, it will should provide the information you need to answer the question in your OP headline.

[gab13by13]

7. Where is your link from Garland

that his moratorium won't start until September 2024? Trump will have secured the Republican nomination way before that. Garland says that he appointed Smith because Trump simply announced his candidacy and he didn't want to appear to be partisan, partisan against who, Republicans who are complicit in the ongoing insurrection?

Garland better indict Trump before he becomes the nominee or he sure as hell is going to appear a lot more partisan than when Trump simply announced he was running.

Even if Trump is indicted what are the logistics for the prosecution? When will a trial be scheduled? How can Trump run for office when he will be busy filing motions in court?

When do you suppose a Trump trial is going to happen? Letitia James has a civil trial for Trump scheduled in October, can you imagine the outrage that is going to come from Trump, how he is going to play the victim, and the MSM will oblige.

Finally, I understand that your source of information comes from the "Emptywheel," that means nothing to me, give me names of experts from the "Emptywheel."

Oh look what the emptywheel is saying, who is saying, where are they getting their information?

[Scrivener7]

13. I agree that emptywheel is a decent aggregator of information that is generally

spread out in time and across different articles. Though I will complain that she isn't particularly thorough. She misses a lot of stuff that has been reported in other venues.

But some here act as if it is chock full of new and exclusive factual information about what is going on.

There have been two articles from emptywheel that have been shopped here as if they are proving that the cases against tfg are moving forward.

Both have been summaries of some widely known information plus a lot of speculation. Maybe it's informed speculation. I don't know. But it's just speculation.

The articles certainly haven't been worth the adoration they seem to get here by those who claim the articles are stone cold proof that things are moving apace at the DOJ.

They just are not that at all.

[Beastly Boy]

16. The experts will say nothing. Do you know why? Of course you do.

Because the experts work for DOJ.

And the people who offer their expertise on teevee are pundits, not experts. They are the employees of Comcast, Warner Media and Fox.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. GOP convention is in August 2024

So, I’m not worried about Garland running out of time to indict Trump, and I’m not worried about him appearing partisan, or what the MSM will say.

Even if Trump is indicted what are the logistics for the prosecution? When will a trial be scheduled? How can Trump run for office when he will be busy filing motions in court?

I’m not sure what you mean by “logistics for the prosecution”, and not sure I could answer you if I did know. I’m sure Garland and Smith can handle it just fine. Between them, they have experience prosecuting terrorists and war criminals, and their team is filled with numerous experienced prosecutors. If there are logistics issues, you can be sure emptywheel will discuss it- they love digging into legal minutiae like that.

The trial(s) will be scheduled when the judge(s) say they will be.

How Trump runs for office while preparing for trial is his business, not mine; I suppose it might difficult, especially if most of his lawyers are busy preparing for their trials, or their testimony as cooperating witnesses…

Emptywheel is run by Marcy Wheeler, a long time (at least 20+ years) political and legal analyst and blogger. She has been a contributor for MSNBC, although less so now that she lives in Ireland. Her two moderators are both experienced criminal lawyers.

[Scrivener7]

12. I'll put the same summary of that article here and ask you the same question about it

as I put in the other thread:

Basically her points are these:
1)Smith is trying to get witnesses. Then she speculates about the things witnesses might do. This is not new information.

2)Epshteyn is in big trouble. Maybe he'll flip. Maybe not. This is not new information.

3) Smith is likely considering charges about the documents. This is not new information

4) There is likely a debate within the DOJ about charges on the documents case. This is not new information.

5) There is likely a debate within the DOJ about the best venue for a case. This is not new information.

6) Trump's lawyers actions indicate they are pursuing a weak line on the documents case. This is not new information.

7) Then she speculates about Trump's possible motives for taking the documents. OK. Good to know this is her opinion, I guess.

8) And she points out that we STILL don't have all the documents. And they are treating their retrieval, as always, with kid gloves.

What hard facts (not speculation) did you find in that article that you didn't know before?

[Grasswire2]

17. interesting tidbid re: the Florida judge

Her husband, Chad, is close to Stephen Miller. He also sits on the Florida Judicial nominations committee.

[erronis]

4. There's lots going on and lots of threads on this subject. I suggest you follow EmptyWheel

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/04/30/where-the-trump-investigations-stand-stolen-documents/

[gab13by13]

5. I get my information from Nicolle Wallace,

she has guests on who know what they are talking about because they are former prosecutors, former FBI, former judges, who is the expert on empty Wheel?

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

27. And that's why you remain uninformed about legal realities

Try a lawyer, not a communicator. Makes a difference.

Empty Wheel is the expert on Empty Wheel. Marcy Wheeler, former federal attorney. Meaning, she's forgotten more about the law than Nicole Wallace will ever know about it.

I don't dislike Wallace, but she is not an attorney. Furthermore she doesn't always ask pertinent questions to further understanding, because she doesn't know what to ask. And she has such a limited time frame to address anything in depth.

[Scrivener7]

9. There isn't much more than speculation in that article.

There certainly isn't any new definitive information in it.

What new facts did you find in it that you didn't know before?

[republianmushroom]

6. 27 months and counting

[gab13by13]

8. Don't Worry, Be Happy

some site called the EMPTYwheel" says everything is OK.

[republianmushroom]

10. If your a republican, trumps happy and free.

[Effete Snob]

11. Well, maybe they'll unseal all them secret indictments...

…that someone on Twitter was on about a few years ago.

[Scrivener7]

15. Oh, yeah! Remember them? People here believed in those too...

[Beastly Boy]

20. Yeah, the investigation that began 12 months ago has lasted 27 months and counting.

Does it really matter to you what you are counting and why?

[republianmushroom]

24. So you admit Garland and the DoJ dragged there feet for 15 months and didn't investigate.

..." investigation that began 12 months ago"... about time you admitted the DoJ wasted 15 months
and didn't investigate. Thank you.

[Beastly Boy]

14. The two investigations are separate, but both are conducted by Special Counsel Smith

The investigations are being conducted parallel to each other, not one after another.

If you are genuinely interested in the progress of the investigation, Wikipedia gives a decent summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_special_counsel_investigation

If, on the other hand, you just wish to find fault with Jack Smith for no good reason, never mind!

[EndlessWire]

21. Thanks for your lame comment.

I didn't say anything about Jack. Nothing.

I asked why we are not indicting Trump for the documents thefts. It is my understanding that Smith does not make the decision whether to prosecute Trump, but Garland does. We have not heard anything in a while about that indictment. No, I am sure stuff is going on about that. Or, is it?

It's May. We are simply going to run out of time. If you had been able to explain the coordination of all the "pending" indictments, the various logistics and cross contamination aspects of all the witnesses versus prosecutions and venues, you would have shined, but you can't. DOJ isn't obliged to tell me everything it's doing. But, I do note that Garland waited not for Midterms to be over, but rather he waited to appoint the SM after Trump announced his candidacy.

Every other prosecutor has equally heavy work products to hustle. But, I at least have the right to voice my concern that we are running out of time to prosecute Trump before he can say, I am the candidate for office and they shouldn't be allowed to touch me now. That's why he did it, that's why he delays and appeals absolutely everything, that's why his people are filing every idiotic suit they can think of, and that's why we are coming up against a deadline.

I never criticized Jack. I am concerned that Garland won't pull the trigger in time to do any good. He's old school, he'll respect the unwritten rule like it's law. I wanted to know if there was any reason not to indict Trump on docs before J6, like "all hell will break loose so let's do it all at once." I'm fine with doing it all at once, as long as it gets done and there is none of this "...but, but it's election time." These people are openly stating their desire to hang the Congress. This isn't normal.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Ah, another grateful fan of my lame comments! I am flattered.

I was suspecting your response to be exactly as you posted it when I brought the Wikipedia link to your attention. Not only does it answer your question of why we are not indicting trump at this point directly, but in doing so it debunks several representations you included in your OP and the above response.

Were you to click on the link I provided, you would have found some lame yet indisputable facts that address your concerns:
- Garland appointed Smith to oversee both the investigation into unlawful interference with the transfer of power (what you refer to as J6) and the other being what you refer to as stealing classified docs.
- Since then, Smith has been conducting both investigations parallel to each other, not waiting to solve one case at a time, both investigations being extremely encompassing and quick-paced.
- Both investigations are ongoing.
- Garland has not yet interfered in the process one single time, nor did he hint at any intention to do so in the future.
- Garland has not received any recommendations or referrals from Smith that would permit him to make a decision to prosecute Trump or not.

Hell, were you to read the contents of the link, you would have even been able to make a number of lame yet inescapable inferences that address your concerns:
- Smith, by definition, whether or not you mention his name, is the subject of your criticism when you express your unhappiness regarding either one of these investigations.
- Your underlying presumption, which you take for granted, that "we" (DOJ?) are waiting to let "him" (Trump?) solve "his" legal troubles one case at a time is false.
- The reason why "they" haven't indicted Trump for stealing classified docs is self-evident: "they" (anyone other than Smith you have in mind here?) have not completed the first step towards an indictment, which is an investigation. Duh.
- The fact that you haven't heard from Garland, which seems to surprise you, is proof positive that your concerns of Garland's possible behind the scenes discord with Smith are premature at best. So is your presumption that we are simply going to run out of time. No rational reason to base your speculations or predictions on that as if your presumptions reflect an inevitable or even the most likely outcome.

I understand why you don't want to hear any of the above: facts get in the way of unfounded anxieties, and they explain the said anxieties away before you get a chance to scapegoat someone at DOJ for having them in the first place. "I want" is more satisfying than "I can't have what I want when I want it".

Do you have the right to express your concerns? Yes. But, if you wish to be taken seriously, you also have the responsibility to base them on the known facts.

Like I said, never mind!

[inthewind21]

23. Bravo

[EndlessWire]

25. A puny answer with very little content.

It's all dependent on your reliance that I did not read your link. If I read your link but do not agree, I simply am ignoring "facts," as YOU see them.

I appreciate links that are given to me, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I think we are running out of time. I think that Jack is running along as swiftly as he can, but that doesn't mean that Garland is or will keep up with Jack.

And neither you nor your source have ANY special insights into the DOJ and their thinking. I think the DOJ can practice rings around Trump's "team," but that doesn't even mean that Garland will allow them to file during that unwritten period of time that Garland, I suspect, is going to respect.

My question is simply, is there any reason not to file on the stolen doc case (and yeah, I think they were stolen, sorry.) But, you act like I have somehow disrespected you personally because I don't agree with your link's conclusions. It has little to do with even your links unfounded conclusions as regards whether Garland will pull the trigger in time to do the country some good.

YES, I have anxiety over this Hitler wannabe regaining power in our country. You can't see the forest for the trees. Your disdain for my opinion and feelings outweighs any reason you have, and your outrage over my lack of enthusiasm for your links opinion pretty much shorts out the discussion.

I think that they should file in DC under the best condition they can muster, because, as pointed out by a previous poster, all the hoopla done under Cannon should have been filed in DC in the first place. But you, personally, didn't discuss that. I suspect you can't, but only wish to demean my feelings, put words in my mouth, and shirk your responsibilities on this bulletin board.

I hope Garland files something before he decides he can't because the DOJ has some unwritten line that he won't cross.

We're done.

[Beastly Boy]

26. As much as I appreciate the flattery, I must disappoint you:

it is not my job to make you recognize facts for what they are. I can only list them for your convenience and link you to my source. The facts themselves do not change depending on how I see them. They also do not depend on the DOJ and their thinking. Smith conducting both investigations on Garland's behalf and not waiting to solve one case at a time is a fact. Garland not impeding Smith's investigation and not making decisions on it one way or another is a fact. The reason we are not indicting trump is a fact. Whether you plead ignorance of the facts because you didn't read them, or you plead ignorance of the facts despite reading them plays absolutely no role in anything I was saying. You don't agree with the facts? Fine, you've made my point.

On the other hand, what you want or don't want lacks factual basis. Your predictions about what will make you pissed lack factual basis. Your patience wearing thin lacks factual basis. Your absolute certainty that we are simply going to run out of time lacks factual basis. Your concern that Garland won't pull the trigger in time to do any good lacks factual basis.

Likewise, my link doesn't get into an analysis of any sort, nor any conclusions, unfounded or otherwise, nor any insights. It is what it is -just the facts, ma'am.

I have no disdain for your opinions. On the contrary, I welcome them. My objection (you can't honestly call it disdain) is for the absence of factual basis in your opinions and apparent disregard, incidental or intentional, to the known facts.